Than_Bogan

@Horton That's terminology that (at least) Jamie Beauchesne and Adam Cord both use. It's another way to think ahout staying connected in the swing from second wake to buoy. If you try to ski toward the shore, you'll necessarily become separated because that isn't where the handle is going. If you move with the handle as it goes up course, then it's possible to maintain connection and use the boat to keep you moving.

For me, this is the difference between the super ugly 35s and the super easy ones. It also makes -38 "possible."

I'm not a huge believer in "special magic." Joel is doing SO many things well. But nevertheless I am curious what @Horton is focusing on.

If I'm limited to picking a "skill," then it's moving with the ski all the time. Like most "advanced amatuers," I spend far too much time toward the back of the ski or otherwise disconnected.

But if I get to pick more general terms, then it's much easier: Dedication. Even a decade ago when I was working hard on getting better, I always recognized there was an entirely different level of dedication possible, with nutrition, coaching, off-water training, and consistent, purposeful on-water training.

@Cooper_Trelawney I believe the boat was the one trying to handle Carl's spray...

@JackQ Do you mean 0.015? If you can feel 2000ths of an inch, then I am ... surprised. :)

That video needs a "may be upsetting to some viewers" warning...

@NewStarts Hope it helps. What gave it away is that if I sit into the "demo position" on the floor, my toes will be nowhere near the ground.

(Also, I am hypersensitive to toe pointing, because I coach a lot of current/former gymnasts in track. Gymnasts learn all sorts of great things, but they also learn a handful of pretty-but-extremely-inefficient body mechanics, including toe pointing when running!)

At the risk of reading too much into just one still shot, the problem appears to be at your ankles. See how your feet are flat on the floor? If your toes are pointed like that while trying to get up, then you are actively pushing yourself toward a backward rotation. If instead you pull your toes up (dorsifexion) from the start , then you'll be close to neutral over the skis the whole way and then can transfer your weight to the balls of your feet and stand right up.

Once you create a large angle between you and the skis (as you likely are doing now), only a very experienced expert could overcome that and stand up. (And they would have to do it by first flexing at the ankles.) If instead you are close to 90 degrees to the skis all the time, then standing up should be FAR easier.

Another way to think about the same thing is: Start in that cannonball but not with the backs of the skis near your butt -- instead they should be tilted just a little forward of vertical. Then allow the skis to roll to horizontal as the boat brings you up -- and maintain your position relative to the skis. This will bring you forward as well, and with the skis directly underneath you, standing up will be just like standing up on the ground.

GOOD LUCK!

Just 3 I think. Fewest in decades.Not all public, but also none of them built specifically for water skiing.

I think @ETskier is talking about being on the same side all the way, which should alternate as +10 and -10, right? The sign is relative to the buoy?

SO COOL!

Congratulations to all!

P.s. Math nerds never get old, we just change the base. I am 29 in icosunimal.

Yes, practice does not count. And yet, I think we overstate sometimes. Here are two people who have NOT run -41 in a record tournament: Joel Howley and me. But one of us has run it in "tournament-like" practice conditions, and so seems a weeee bit more likely to run it in an actual tournament.

So maybe practice doesn't "count" but it does matter.

@skialex Ah, I think I understand.

What it comes down to is that we currently "pay" a skier a 0.5 ball for deciding to stop skiing. And, of course, stopping skiing is safer. If a skier is bad at making safety decisions, maybe that little payoff encourages them to stop sometimes.

It usually doesn't, of course, as no pro is going to care about 3 @ 10.75 vs. 2.5 @ 10.75 -- that is a must run pass. A pro will take whatever risk they are willing to tolerate in order to complete 10.75. The incentive to stop is usually only relevant at 10.25.

At a philosophical level, I prefer to ask skiers to make the same risk assessments at 10.25 that they are already forced to make at 10.75 (and all other rope lengths).

@ScottScott That is a valid objection, but is not my main objection. I think the fundamental flaw lies in the incentive to stop skiing.

I disagree that getting back to the wakes is "a progression over" -- in most cases it is the result of giving up because you had zero chance to get another ball. Falling at the end of a turn is usually because you did have a chance to get another ball. At my level, for example, 2 @ -38 is because I had no shot at 3. 1.5 @ -38 often means I did have a shot at 3.

@Drago. No diagram needed. Including the:renaming, you simply get the full ball at the spot that is currently called half, and you can't score any more than that until you get outside the next buoy. Everything is the same except you don't get anything extra for getting back to the wakes.

@skialex Say more about why you think more injuries night occur. You just keep skiing. Sure, skiing is inherently dangerous, so I suppose technically any incentive to stop skiing reduces danger, but that doesn't feel like what you mean?

It would definitely incentivize continued skiing, but it's actually much less clear whether it would lead to more runoffs. Sure, there would be fewer possible scores to choose from, so that

could

increase the number of ties. However, the current rules often incentivize

stopping

at a tie, as it is too risky to continue, so you give up and accept the runoff. In fact, this incentive even applies to skiers who are earlier in the order. If a pro has a chance to get a full 3 @ 10.25, they often are compelled to take that, since 3 almost always makes the finals, but 2.5 is far less reliable to get in! How many deeper 41s could happen if it was

always

strategically correct to just slam a turn at the 3 ball and see what happens!?So anyhow: My proposal would lead to more

accidental

ties, but far fewer

intentional

ties. It's not quite clear how those would balance out. But if indeed there ended up being more runoffs, I'd be more than happy to accept that consequence to let people actually ski!Those of you assuming I have lost my mind: Keep thinking about it. Reason through all the strategic consequences, as well as the simple fact that a score of 1.5 is very often the result of a much better start than a score of 2.I can't guarantee I'm right, but I have thought about this a lot for a long time.

Why give any points for an S turn? From a game theory standpoint, the existing rule creates a (strong) incentive to stop skiing. All you have to do is eliminate the entire concept of getting a "full" buoy by returning to the center line and BAM, incentive gone. Then everybody just skis as hard as they can.I've actually been thinking about this for many years, and I am quite convinced it would be better for both competitors and spectators.(You can, of course, rename the scores so that you don't always end up with a half. An easy option is just rename it to a full point at the spot that is now called half.)

Good luck Joel!

He actually talked about his binding setup at the last pro tour stop and it basically came down to "Don't Try This at Home." He's doing some aggressive experiments that may lead to running -41 and may eventually lead to some commercial boot designs. But right now he seems very aware that he is test piloting something rather dangerous.

It's hard to make big advancements in certain areas unless you have a few people willing to try something dangerous. So that's great, but us ordinary folks shouldn't be emulating any aspect of his setup just yet.

Ancient One

Google Ancient One vs. Hulk if you've forgotten.

Honest truth: every time she knocks the soul through someone I think of the first time I got direct coaching from Caldwell.

And not just because both are bald...

A ski being "rated" for a given speed is needed, but not sufficient. It also needs to be a size that will be comfortable for you to actually ski at that speed. My philosophy for newer skiers is to ski as slowly as you can possibly stand it, and really work on fundamentals of body position and making your own speed across the wakes. But that will be super-unfun if your ski is too small for the speed.

The correct size will be dictated by ski model, boat speed, and skier weight, and most skis have a chart with these factors so you can get the best size.

I haven't studied the point system, but the pasted document hints at the answer where it says "best 7 events." So as long as you actually enter 7 events, the point system doesn't appear to simply be "enter the most events and win."

I think that also means that the concept of a "leaderboard" is rather misleading, as it will soon be at a point where it is almost impossible for certain people to gain points (having already done 7 events), whereas others will pick up big chunks in the future?